4 ms·
I would have preferred NFSv4 over SMB2. They are quite similar technically, but the former has less chance of veering off into supporting strange Windowsims wh
by codex 13y ago
I would have preferred NFSv4 over SMB2. They are quite similar technically, but the former has less chance of veering off into supporting strange Windowsims which will be hard to translate to a POSIX client. That said, SMB2 is widely deployed and Microsoft is innovating in SMB faster than NFS is improving.
Fortunately OS X does not use Samba as their SMB2 client.
- mhurron 13y agoMost users are going to have a Mac and a Windows machine, SMB makes far more sense. You're going to see NFS in enterprise situations and Apple does not really aim there target there.
- mitchty 13y agoNot only that but nfsv4 has its own issues in regards to userid/gid mapping. Setting that up with kerberos is... not fun (speaking from the solaris/linux/aix side of things). Not that smb would be better for most unixes mind you, just that nfsv4 is its own version of hell in some ways.